Gabriel Rockhill

In this wide-ranging interview, Gabriel Rockhill discusses his most recent book, Counter-History of the Present, in the broader context of his research to date on aesthetics, politics and history, as well as its relationship to important interlocutors like Jean-François Lyotard, Michel Foucault, Jacques Rancière, Jacques Derrida, Frantz Fanon and Simone de Beauvoir. He explains the similarities and important differences between genealogy and counter-history, and he elucidates how his work performs a materialist deconstruction that contests the idealist logocentrism operative in purely textualist modes of interpretation. The interview also develops an account of “radical geography” that calls into question culturalist spatial imaginaries, which plague certain forms of decolonial theory that diminish or efface social stratification and class conflict. The discussion thereby contributes to the development of a new model for critical social theory with an internationalist perspective, which seeks to weave these conceptual innovations into a rigorous and radical materialism.

With a critical eye, Gabriel Rockhill guides you through complex debates in history, politics and aesthetics, giving you an overview of key issues and central figures, including Foucault, Derrida, Castoriadis, Badiou and Ranciere.Rockhill also engages in a nuanced exploration of recent work that calls into question the stereotype of 'prominent figures' and 'intellectual movements. Far from hiding behind towering figures of the intellectual world, Rockhill stakes out positions in relationship to them and formulates precise arguments in favour of a new understanding of the historical relationship between art and politics.

This article sets forth a compositional model of ideology by drawing on the tradition of historical materialism and further developing its insights into the aesthetic composition of reality. It demonstrates how ideology is not simply a set of false beliefs but is rather the process by which social agents are composed over time in every dimension of their existence, including their thoughts, practices, perceptions, representations, values, affects, desires, and unconscious drives. By working through a number of diverse debates and authors—ranging from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels to Louis Althusser, Eduardo Galeano, Rosaura Sánchez, and Paulo Freire—it thereby elucidates how ideology is best understood as an aesthetic process that includes aspect of sense and sense-making, and that therefore requires a collective, cultural revolution as its antidote.

In this wide-ranging interview, Gabriel Rockhill discusses his most recent book, Counter-History of the Present, in the broader context of his research to date on aesthetics, politics and history, as well as its relationship to important interlocutors like Jean-François Lyotard, Michel Foucault, Jacques Rancière, Jacques Derrida, Frantz Fanon and Simone de Beauvoir. He explains the similarities and important differences between genealogy and counter-history, and he elucidates how his work performs a materialist deconstruction that contests the idealist logocentrism operative in purely textualist modes of interpretation. The interview also develops an account of “radical geography” that calls into question culturalist spatial imaginaries, which plague certain forms of decolonial theory that diminish or efface social stratification and class conflict. The discussion thereby contributes to the development of a new model for critical social theory with an internationalist perspective, which seeks to weave these conceptual innovations into a rigorous and radical materialism.

This article explores the force and limitations of Jacques Rancière’s novel attempt to rethink the relationship between aesthetics and politics. In particular, it unravels the paradoxical threads of the fundamental contradiction between two of his steadfast claims: (1) art and politics are consubstantial, and (2) art and politics never truly merge. In taking Rancière to task on this point, the primary objective of this article is to work through the nuances of his project andforeground the problems inherent therein in order to break with the “talisman complex” and the “ontological illusion” of the politics of aesthetics in the name of a new understanding of the social politicity of artistic practices.

In _Counter-History of the Present_ Gabriel Rockhill contests, dismantles, and displaces one of the most widespread understandings of the contemporary world: that we are all living in a democratized and globalized era intimately connected by a single, overarching economic and technological network. Noting how such a narrative fails to account for the experiences of the billions of people who lack economic security, digital access, and real political power, Rockhill interrogates the ways in which this grand narrative has emerged in the same historical, economic, and cultural context as the fervid expansion of neoliberalism. He also critiques the concurrent valorization of democracy, which is often used to justify U.S. military interventions on the behalf of capital. Developing an alternative account of the current conjuncture that acknowledges the plurality of lived experiences around the globe and in different social strata, he shifts the foundations upon which debates about the contemporary world can be staged. Rockhill's counter-history thereby offers a new grammar for historical narratives, creating space for the articulation of futures no longer engulfed in the perpetuation of the present.

Gabriel Rockhill - Analytic Philosophy and the History of Philosophy - Journal of the History of Philosophy 45:4 Journal of the History of Philosophy 45.4 678-679 Muse Search Journals This Journal Contents Reviewed by Gabriel Rockhill Villanova University Tom Sorell and G. A. J. Rogers, editors. Analytic Philosophy and the History of Philosophy. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Pp. 239. Cloth, $65.00. It has often been assumed that history is one of the major dividing lines between analytic and continental philosophy. Participants in the latter tradition have primarily been preoccupied with deferent interpretations of the philosophical auctores, expressing their own ideas through a form of "exegetical thinking" by which present philosophical intuitions are validated when they are discovered..

In this interview, Cornelius Castoriadis explains and develops many of the central themes in his later writings on politics and social criticism. In particular, he poignantly articulates his critique of contemporary pseudo-democracy, while advocating a form of democracy founded on collective education and self-government. He also explores how the “insignificance” in the current political arena relates to insignificance in other areas, such as the arts and philosophy, to form the core feature of our Zeitgeist. Finally, he seeks to break through the ideological fog of liberalism and privatization in order to voice a radical appeal for an autonomous, self-limiting society.

The French philosopher Jacques Rancière has influenced disciplines from history and philosophy to political theory, literature, art history, and film studies. His research into nineteenth-century workers’ archives, reflections on political equality, critique of the traditional division between intellectual and manual labor, and analysis of the place of literature, film, and art in modern society have all constituted major contributions to contemporary thought. In this collection, leading scholars in the fields of philosophy, literary theory, and cultural criticism engage Rancière’s work, illuminating its originality, breadth, and rigor, as well as its place in current debates. They also explore the relationships between Rancière and the various authors and artists he has analyzed, ranging from Plato and Aristotle to Flaubert, Rossellini, Auerbach, Bourdieu, and Deleuze. The contributors to this collection do not simply elucidate Rancière’s project; they also critically respond to it from their own perspectives. They consider the theorist’s engagement with the writing of history, with institutional and narrative constructions of time, and with the ways that individuals and communities can disturb or reconfigure what he has called the “distribution of the sensible.” They examine his unique conception of politics as the disruption of the established distribution of bodies and roles in the social order, and they elucidate his novel account of the relationship between aesthetics and politics by exploring his astute analyses of literature and the visual arts. In the collection’s final essay, Rancière addresses some of the questions raised by the other contributors and returns to his early work to provide a retrospective account of the fundamental stakes of his project. _Contributors_. Alain Badiou, Étienne Balibar, Bruno Bosteels, Yves Citton, Tom Conley, Solange Guénoun, Peter Hallward, Todd May, Eric Méchoulan, Giuseppina Mecchia, Jean-Luc Nancy, Andrew Parker, Jacques Rancière, Gabriel Rockhill, Kristin Ross, James Swenson, Rajeshwari Vallury, Philip Watts

Au lieu d’intervenir dans le debat sur la nature du temps present en créant une nouvelle schématisation de notre âge, nous proposons ici une intervention sur ce débat en esquissant les coordonnées conceptuelIes qui déterminent I’espace des possibles de la controverse. Il s ’agil alors d’une réflexion sur la logique historique, sociale et normative qui structure le débat sur le temps présent, et plus particulièrement la controverse postmoderne. Loin pourtant d’être une simple analyse «externe», cette interrogation sur les paramètres conceptuels et pratiques qui déterminent d’avance la nature même des interventions dans le débat postmoderne est aussi I’occasion d’examiner de près des prises de position spécifiques, comme celles d’Alex Callinicos, Fredric Jameson, Jean-Franç;ois Lyotard, IhabHassan, Jürgen Habermas, Richard Rorty et Gianni Vattimo

L’objectif principal de cet article est de mettre en évidence l’axiologie métaphilosophique et la logique normative binaire – la valorisation de la différence par rapport à l’identité – qui a dominé « la philosophie de la différence » en France, et qui a trouvé un terrain d’accueil relativement favorable dans « la politique de la différence » en Amérique du Nord. En détaillant une série d’opérations conceptuelles liées à cette axiologie fondamentale, il s’agira de remettre en question la sacralisation de la différence en nous interrogeant notamment sur ses conséquences politiques.

Philosopher, c’est, pense-t-on, faire de l’histoire de la philosophie ; c’est lire et interpréter les textes canoniques des grands penseurs de la tradition européenne en suivant l’enchaînement des idées depuis les Grecs anciens. Cette manière de pratiquer la philosophie est devenue tellement naturelle qu’elle en a oublié sa propre historicité. D’où la nécessité de la mettre en évidence en examinant de près ses multiples conséquences. C’est justement un des objectifs de l’analytique des pratiques philosophiques entreprise dans le présent ouvrage. Ce livre propose en même temps une logique historique et herméneutique alternative s’inscrivant en faux contre la philosophie contemporaine, notamment dans ses diverses tentatives de « rupture », plus ou moins superficielles sur le plan pratique. Dans un dialogue avec les sciences humaines et sociales, il reprend à nouveaux frais et d’un tout autre point de vue les trois moments privilégiés de notre histoire de « la » philosophie (le commencement, le tournant moderne, le moment présent). Ne visant pourtant pas à entériner la réduction de la philosophie à une pratique historique et herméneutique, il s’agit avant tout de mettre en lumière la contingence d’une telle détermination afin de déplacer les marges de manœuvre imposées aux penseurs d’aujourd’hui et faire de la place à d’autres pratiques théoriques (qu’elles soient historiques et herméneutiques ou non). Le résultat, c’est une investigation méthodologique dont les enjeux et les conséquences dépassent de loin les limites de la philosophie dans son acceptation traditionnelle. Approximate English Translation: Philosophy, we tend to think, amounts to doing the history of philosophy, to reading and interpreting the canonical texts of the great thinkers of the European tradition, following the sequence of ideas since the ancient Greeks. This way of practicing philosophy has become so natural—at least within the ‘continental’ tradition—that it has forgotten its own historicity. It is for this reason that it is necessary to bring it to light by examining its multiple consequences. This is precisely one of the objectives of the analytic of philosophic practices undertaken in the present work. This book proposes, at the same time, an alternative historical and hermeneutic logic that critically distances itself from contemporary philosophy, particularly in its diverse attempts to propose a “rupture,” which remain more or less superficial at a practical level. In dialogue with the social and human sciences, it reassesses, from an entirely different point of view, the three privileged moments of our supposed history of philosophy (the beginning, the modern turn, the present moment). It does not aim, however, at endorsing the reduction of philosophy to a historical and hermeneutic practice. It is above all a matter of bringing to light the contingency of such a determination in order to displace the margins of maneuverability imposed on thinkers today and to make room for other theoretical practices (if they be historical and hermeneutic or not). The result is a methodological investigation whose stakes and consequences far surpass the limits of philosophy as it is traditionally understood.

Au lieu d’intervenir dans le debat sur la nature du temps present en créant une nouvelle schématisation de notre âge, nous proposons ici une intervention sur ce débat en esquissant les coordonnées conceptuelIes qui déterminent I’espace des possibles de la controverse. Il s ’agil alors d’une réflexion sur la logique historique, sociale et normative qui structure le débat sur le temps présent, et plus particulièrement la controverse postmoderne. Loin pourtant d’être une simple analyse «externe», cette interrogation sur les paramètres conceptuels et pratiques qui déterminent d’avance la nature même des interventions dans le débat postmoderne est aussi I’occasion d’examiner de près des prises de position spécifiques, comme celles d’Alex Callinicos, Fredric Jameson, Jean-Franç;ois Lyotard, IhabHassan, Jürgen Habermas, Richard Rorty et Gianni Vattimo.

This paper explores Michel Foucault’s contribution to rethinking the nature of the present through his examination of the ontology of contemporary reality he locates in Immanuel Kant’s “What Is Enlightenment?” By raising a series of critical questions concerning the epochal thinking that plagues Foucault’s various engagements with this text, the article goes on to argue that the attempt to find a single concept—or question—that appropriately summarizes a given era is an endeavor fraught with methodological problems. Highlighting the limitations of Foucault’s approach in spite of his attempt to rethink modernity as an attitude, the paper concludes by advocating an alternative logic of history that definitively abandons epochal thinking in favor of a topological mapping of historical force fields in which it is recognized that there is no being behind time

The primary objective of this book is to open space for rethinking the relationship between art and politics. It seeks to combat one of the fundamental assumptions that has plagued many of the previous debates on this issue: that art and politics are distinct entities definable in terms of common properties, and that they have privileged points of intersection, which can be determined once and for all in terms of an established formula. This common sense assumption is rooted in a transcendent illusion according to which there are more or less fixed characteristics that unify our terms, concepts, and practices in such a way as to guarantee their meaning. Against this substantialist approach, Radical History & the Politics of Art argues for a praxeological account that begins the other way around by analyzing specific cultural practices without presupposing a conceptual unity behind them. Such an orientation is radically historicist in the sense that it recognizes that all of our practices—be they linguistic, theoretical, aesthetic or political—are historically constituted and that they are necessarily part of a temporal dynamic. Hence the contingent nature of the labels used to classify various practices or even identify ‘practice’ as such. Radical history thereby proposes a significant departure from the extant debates on art and politics by maintaining that there is no ‘art’ or ‘politics’ in general, nor a singular relation between them. There are only historically constituted practices in various conjunctures, some of which have been labeled, through practical acts of denomination, as ‘artistic’ or ‘political.’ Instead of proposing one more response to the oft-repeated question ‘what is the relationship between Art and Politics?’ this book seeks to overcome the presuppositions that plague such a question. It thereby changes the very nature of the investigation by asking: ‘how do the diverse aspects of practices identified as ‘aesthetic’ and ‘political’ overlap, intertwine and sometimes merge in precise socio-historical force fields of action?

L’objectif principal de cet article est de mettre en évidence l’axiologie métaphilosophique et la logique normative binaire – la valorisation de la différence par rapport à l’identité – qui a dominé « la philosophie de la différence » en France, et qui a trouvé un terrain d’accueil relativement favorable dans « la politique de la différence » en Amérique du Nord. En détaillant une série d’opérations conceptuelles liées à cette axiologie fondamentale, il s’agira de remettre en question la sacralisation de la différence en nous interrogeant notamment sur ses conséquences politiques.

In this interview, Cornelius Castoriadis explains and develops many of the central themes in his later writings on politics and social criticism. In particular, he poignantly articulates his critique of contemporary pseudo-democracy, while advocating a form of democracy founded on collective education and self-government. He also explores how the “insignificance” in the current political arena relates to insignificance in other areas, such as the arts and philosophy, to form the core feature of our Zeitgeist. Finally, he seeks to break through the ideological fog of liberalism and privatization in order to voice a radical appeal for an autonomous, self-limiting society.

"The standard historical image of Jean-Luc Godard is that of a resolute iconoclast breaking with the representational norms and codes of classical cinema in the name of liberating film from the deadening weight of its past. His numerous formal innovations—syncopated montage, unconventional framing, unique experiments with dialogue, etc.—along with his abandonment of traditional narrative and character development, his playful pastiche of genres, his debunking of the representational illusions of cinematic realism, his reflexive preoccupation with film itself and the general dissolution of the distinction between high and low art have created a potent new form of cinema that continues to have far-reaching effects. More experimental than Truffaut, more temerarious than Chabrol, but less fastidious than Resnais, less obtuse and prolix than Rivette, Godard is seen as the bumptious enfant terrible of the Cahiers du cinéma who set the agenda for a new era of modernist filmmaking..."

This article explores the force and limitations of Jacques Rancière’s novel attempt to rethink the relationship between aesthetics and politics. In particular, it unravels the paradoxical threads of the fundamental contradiction between two of his steadfast claims: (1) art and politics are consubstantial, and (2) art and politics never truly merge. In taking Rancière to task on this point, the primary objective of this article is to work through the nuances of his project andforeground the problems inherent therein in order to break with the “talisman complex” and the “ontological illusion” of the politics of aesthetics in the name of a new understanding of the social politicity of artistic practices.